<p>
</p>
<p>No argument from me. So, he would react that way regardless of “the truth.” Right?</p>
<p>Well, I don’t know what you are trying to get me to say, 07.</p>
<p>As I’ve made clear, I find him responsible for the murder from the moment he followed Trayvon with the gun against police recommendations. Nobody was responsible for the escalation of that situation but Zimmerman, imho.</p>
<p>Of course, as I have also made clear, nobody would have sat me on that Jury</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe it. A woman I used to work with hit a bicyclist in a torrential rainstorm and he died. He was drunk, it was dark, and he rode directly into her path. She went into a deep depression and her life spiraled out of control, to the point that she had to take an extended leave from her job and receive extensive counseling…even though what happened wasn’t her fault.</p>
<p>poetgrl–</p>
<p>I’m not rying to get you to say anything. You’ve been really direct with your view and that you would not be able to claim that you were impartial if asked as part of jury selection.</p>
<p>My point to the thread is that if GZ thought he had done nothing “wrong” then his conduct afterward is not inconsistent with that belief.</p>
<p>As many of you know, Texas has a stand your ground law that lets you use lethal to protect person and property, including that life and property of someone else. A person that is into guns and self defense etc. just may not be wired the way others are.</p>
<p>They have interviewed one guy who shot people who he saw on his next door neighbor’s porch as they were moving away. Told 911 what he was going to do. Never showed an ounce of anything other than “I got them.” Not charged. Same with a guy who shot someone from his apartment balconey who taking his rims.</p>
<p>“My point to the thread is that if GZ thought he had done nothing “wrong” then his conduct afterward is not inconsistent with that belief.”</p>
<p>except that once he learned that TM was an unarmed 17 yr old kid who was staying with his father in the same community, why didn’t his belief change. Upon realizing that TM was not a f—n punk, as the police officer pointed out to him, why did he persist in calling him one at that point.</p>
<p>Like poetgrl I could not serve on the jury, clearly. However I would imagine that if jurors hear how GZ spoke of TM AFTER killing him, it would influence their perception of GZ as an angry guy, with a hostile view of the world, not necessarily a “good guy” who simply acted in self defense.</p>
<p>May I ask what parts of Zimmerman’s story have changed as the matter has progressed? (I’ve seen references to that on this thread and am curious as to what posters are referring to.)</p>
<p>07, correct me if I’m wrong since you are a lawyer. In this case, GZ is contending that he shot and killed because he was fearful of his life. But if instead, the prosecutor is successful in painting the picture that GZ was instead more obsessed with taking out criminals ignoring rules, procedures and common sense. There are many examples of those including this particular exchange with the interrogator 3 days after the event. That is a legitimate legal argument to make?</p>
<p>07, I think that all I keep seeing is why guys like Zimmerman need these laws to go away. Also, the rest of us would be much safer without them, too.</p>
<p>I think a true self-defense defense, in the case of somebody defending someone from an actual criminal can be mounted without these very dangerous SYG laws.</p>
<p>But, any time somebody is killed, a full and thorough investigation needs to take place.</p>
<p>Even in the case of self-defense, a remorseful person will feel better if they are thoroughly investigated and found to be innocent. For the sake of everyone, I think the law needs to be clear that taking a life is a crime of which you need to be acquitted.</p>
<p>JMO</p>
<p>curious, why after shooting TM in the heart, why did GZ feel it was necessary to hold him down? and tell the neighbor "I don’t need you to call 911, I need you to help me with this guy?</p>
<p>was he still in fear for his life? seriously. I realize that TM died instantly, but what if he could have been saved? in my view GZ demonstrated a depraved indifference to human life.</p>
<p>he also claimed TM spoke after being shot, “Alright you got it.” and again after laying on the ground. but the autopsy stated he died instantly?</p>
<p>The prosecution is introducing the audio statement of Zimmerman made to a police officer in an interrogation room. Zimmerman said that Martin approached him and said "you got a problem hommie? Zimmerman said “I don’t have a problem.” Martin then punched Zimmerman in the nose. </p>
<p>Thanks to the prosecution we now know Martin threw the first punch.</p>
<p>Thanks to the prosecution, we now know that Zimmerman SAID Trayvon Martin threw the first punch.</p>
<p>Help me out here. Where in the autopsy is there a finding that death was instantaneous.</p>
<p><a href=“http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf[/url]”>http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf</a></p>
<p>Depends what you mean by instantaneous, probably not technically, maybe 20-30 seconds of consciousness according to the experts in one article.</p>
<p>The prosecutor keeps pointing out that Zimmerman used the term “suspect” and that that was a term not originating from the police officer. Zimmerman’s use of “suspect” seems irrelevant. From Zimmerman’s perspective Martin was a suspect and that is why Zimmerman called the police.</p>
<p>lindz, according to what I heard from the officer’s testimony, Zimmerman said after the shot TM and TM moved from the impact, Zimmerman got on top of TM and held down his hands because of two things: 1. He heard TM say something (meaning the suspect wasn’t immediately dead) and 2. He didn’t know what TM was hitting him with. </p>
<p>According to testimony, after the shot, TM said something like “You got it” (I’m not positive of the exact words).</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, a person can say something or mumble or move for a short before death. In other words, a person may still have some faculties before dying seconds or minutes later.</p>
<p>minor but I used the term instantly, not instantaneous. ttparent, that’s also what I read, one expert said 20-30 seconds, another a minute or two. so perhaps instantly is not exactly accurate. I would think that it was probably pretty clear that TM was severely/fatally wounded.</p>
<p>did GZ really still feel in mortal danger with TM on the ground? he remained only focused on himself, but sound of mind enough to respond to the neighbor who wanted to call 911. Why did GZ say “I don’t need you to call 911, I need you to help me with this guy”</p>
<p>@razorsharp: And that is why this looks worse and worse for him. He was a vigilante hell-bent on extracting “justice” from someone he believed to be a “f***ing punk,” even without a single fact to support his views.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where’s the blood–even a trace amount–on the concrete his head was being pounded into?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My white teenagers have been know to walk at a one mile an hour pace, and act strangely. But talking on the phone is not strange. Martin said on a phone call that someone was following him. Those up to no good are not calling attention to themselves talking on the phone. Zimmerman, whether racist or not, is a bad observer of human behavior. </p>
<p>Zimmerman’s defense boils down to dead men tell no tales. And eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. </p>
<p>Psychology 101 classes often have a set up where someone rushes in and snatches the prof’s briefcase, purse, etc. When the class is questioned descriptions of the event vary widely and wildly. The person was tall, short, black, white male female. </p>
<p>Personally, I believe the science of excluded voice analysis that had Martin as the voice screaming for help. </p>
<p>Arguably, it did not identify the voice sufficiently to meet the reasonable doubt standard. But you can bet it will be admissible in the eventual civil suit against Zimmerman (along with the bigger pockets of Sanford, the Gated Community ownership, and the watch association–among others). Civil procedure has a preponderance of evidence standard, and the voice analysis will meet that.</p>
<p>In the Brown-Goldman murders, the victims families did not get a modicum of justice from OJ until they brought a wrongful death action. And as was the case with OJ, Zimmermanan–if acquitted–will be compelled to give a deposition and testify at trial.</p>
<p>The worst part is that he holstered his weapon and went to restrain him. Not even a thought to CPR.</p>
<p>To me this is so sick. Truly horrifying.</p>
<p>I think (my BIL is a cardiologist, but is not answering his emails today), that there are cadaveric spasms and sounds that could account for what GZ reported (not that GZ “heard” correctly).</p>